The Grenfell Tower tragedy exposed devastating failures in building safety. One of its consequences, however, was a fundamental change in the law governing the safety of residential buildings and who can be held responsible when something goes wrong.
For leaseholders experiencing problems with the management or safety of their building, those changes can have very practical consequences.
A particularly difficult situation can arise where the corporate structure surrounding a building is complicated, or where a company involved in its ownership or management has gone into administration.
Where it might have previously appeared that the disappearance or insolvency of the company immediately involved leaves leaseholders with nowhere else to turn, the Building Safety Act 2022, introduced following Grenfell, has significantly changed the legal landscape.
Giving building safety law some real teeth
The ownership and management of residential buildings can involve several different parties, such as freeholders, headlease holders, management companies, developers and other associated companies within the structure.
Establishing who is responsible for a building – and for addressing problems with it – therefore isn’t always as straightforward as identifying the company immediately managing the property.
The Building Safety Act introduced a range of measures intended to strengthen accountability and protect leaseholders from certain costs associated with historical building safety defects.
Importantly, subsequent cases have begun to demonstrate how the courts can use those powers in practice.
Looking back at what happened
One significant feature of the new building safety regime is its ability to deal with historical problems.
The Act extended the period in which certain claims can be brought under the Defective Premises Act 1972. For work completed before the relevant provisions of the Building Safety Act came into force, that limitation period was extended retrospectively to 30 years.
For leaseholders dealing with longstanding defects, the history of a building can therefore be extremely important. Questions may still need to be asked about what work was undertaken, when it happened, who was involved and which organisations may bear responsibility for the resulting problems, however, it creates a path forward for leaseholders facing historical building issues.
Going beyond the company immediately responsible
The Building Safety Act also allows the courts to look further through corporate structures in certain circumstances by introducing Building Liability Orders. These can allow the High Court, where it considers it just and equitable to do so, to extend certain liabilities from one company to an associated company.
That matters because property and development businesses can operate through complicated corporate structures, including individual companies established for particular developments. If the company immediately associated with a building has become insolvent, that does not necessarily mean the question of responsibility ends there.
It is this combination – the ability to look further back at historical defects and, in appropriate cases, further through the organisations involved – that gives the post-Grenfell legislation some of its real teeth.
What does this mean for leaseholders?
If you are concerned about the safety or management of your building, don’t assume that an insolvent company, complicated ownership structure or historic defect necessarily means there is nowhere else to turn.
The precise legal position will depend on the circumstances of the building, the nature and age of the defects, the relevant leases and repairing obligations, and the companies and individuals involved. Understanding that structure can be complicated, particularly where a problem has developed over many years.
Taking advice at an early stage can help establish what has happened, who may have responsibility and what legal routes may be available.
If you’re experiencing a complex leasehold or building safety issue and would like advice on your position, please get in touch.
Video by Gillan Williams.
Where reserved legal work is required, I undertake this through one of the authorised firms I consult with.